Posts Tagged ‘peace’

When commenting on the “new” phenomenon of “fake news” with presumably a multiplier effect with the Internet, there is an elephant in the room getting ignored by most of the traditionally respected actors in the sphere of news and commentary. They have formed a kind of “mutual admiration society” with a circularly reinforcing view of events that excludes outlying and dissenting views.

The ones who are most troubled about fake news and looking for ways to limit its effect are the ones often most guilty, in other words.

Tabloids have peppered newsstands in stores and supermarkets for decades, including testimonials of women who gave birth to two-headed aliens.

This “new” theme of “fake news” was tossed out first in the 2016 presidential campaign, pushed by both Obama himself and the Clinton campaign.

In a typical use of the term, the Washington Post was so aghast at the fake news scare that it published a list of fake news sites, throwing in serious right-leaning sites questioning official ruling party views, like Breitbart.com, in with actual blatant and overtly “fake news” sites like “The Onion”.

And of all the accused “fake news” sites getting fingered by “authoritative” sources in this discussion, is a simple news link aggregator, www.drudgereport.com, that does not even pretend to offer its own content, and does not even have original commentary, and includes links that are even helping drive people to traditional newspaper sites like the Washington Post itself!

That list was made by an apparently “fake front” for some group that demanded anonymity from The W. P. to protect itself from blow-back purportedly, and then quickly disappeared into the cyber ether.

But let us look at a mere handful of items from the history of “fake news”.

The sinking of the Battleship Maine was immediately blamed on Spain by the Respectable Establishment Press in the United States. To this day the cause of the explosion that sunk it, deep in the bowels of the ship, is a mystery.

The sinking of the Lusitania was used as a pretext to involve the U. S. in World War One, the “Great War”. We now know, a fact hidden then, that the Lusitania was loaded with all kinds of bellicose material. Instead of reminding both Woodrow Wilson and the public of his guarantee that he would not involve the country in that war, it cheered the battle and helped cover up the military nature of that ship’s cargo, using civilian passengers as “human shields”.

More recently, the chemical attack in Syria in 2013 proved to be a “false flag” attack by the rebels supported by the USA in funding and equipment, as reported in several European newspapers and by respected award-winning journalist Seymour Hirsch: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Those rebels were actively developing these weapons. The version of the recent 2017 attack that a standard Syrian bomb hit a rebel depot storing such weapons is a much more credible version.

And yet, most, though not all, the Elephant in the Room swallowed up the story without questioning why the winning side of the war, now not having to worry about Trump’s administration removing him (“Regime change is off the table”), would want to risk it all by using chemicals.

There is much ado about nothing. The winners of any crackdown on “fake news” are in a Truth is Lies ministry, as in Orwellian worlds. “War is the health of the state”, the saying goes, justifying attacks on civil liberties.

There is another good example of the “wild west” Internet doing more good than bad. ACM Communications recently published an article about the posting of what purported to be a solution to the “P versus not P” problem. It was refuted quickly, in about one day. One day! That used to take submission to peer review, with months required for review then publishing, and do it again for a refutation if it got past the months of peer review.

The Internet is Peer Review on Steroids.

In computing and science, there is not much to fear there either, except from the self-appointed “opinion leaders”. America still has a great many people thinking for themselves.

CIA, FYI, these are politicized agencies now. CIA is known for disinformation operations, lies with a political agenda. CIA is also known for coups to overthrow elected governments.

We also know that George Soros and his merry band of hired agents, including in the State Department, overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, and meddled in post-Soviet Georgia.

We know also there was a lot of direct coordination between the Clinton campaign and Mockingbird Media. Whistle-blowers have told us that the CIA has agents in all the Establishment news rooms and publishing houses, whence the “Mockingbird Media” description. A journalist in Germany has openly confessed in shame that he published stories paid for by the CIA.

We know the Intelligence reports of WMD’s
in Iraq that Bush 43 used to justify invading Iraq were lies.

We know that the CIA grilled Jesse Ventura on how he got himself elected governor.

Now with this new tale about Russia hacking the American election to get a nationalist elected, we’re supposed to believe this?

The author says “The president himself is partly to blame” for getting Democrat Party members and followers and the public “inured” to war. Hey guys, he is to blame for jumping in with both feet. President Truman hung out a sign on his desk: “The buck stops here”. The expression, for you younger guys, means he’s the boss and takes the blame for his underlings.

Obama loves to blame the “top one percent” for everything their companies do, why soft-pedal this thing with him. What, he listens to his Secretary of State and former rival for top dog, and his coterie of adviser women, and he has no blame for anything?

And then this “Reason” author says something that in this real world sounds irrational:

“Obama has also refused to be panicked into reckless military action against Syria”.

BALONEY.

Americans were tired of war, and even when they tried the false flag operation of getting the Syrian “rebels” to use chemical weapons against civilians while blaming it on Syria, in one marvelous demonstration of the importance of an independent free-for-all Internet, it took one lonely unsung European reporter to blow the whistle on them.

(By the way, the U. S. has stockpiles of those weapons, and used a banned chemical warfare weapon against its own civilians at Waco, Texas. That “tear gas” was a chemical used in Vietnam to kill the Vietcong in their tunnels.)

In other words, Obama either approved the operation or post-facto nodded at it.

OBAMA IS ALL IN AGAINST ASSAD AND HELPING SYRIAN REBELS AND ISIS INCLUDED

Everybody who isn’t head-stuck in the sand knows by now that D.C. is pouring aid into Saudi Arabia as back-channel help for the “rebels” in Syria. Almost everybody should know by now –if you’re paying attention– that Saudi Arabia is pouring rivers of financing and arms to ISIS. On occasion the war hawks talk about using the Middle East allies more, but they don’t say too much.

Now we find out that Obama has deliberately ordered the troops to let ISIS sell their oil.

Somebody reading this is rolling their eyes because they believe government media (PBS, NPR, CNN, FNC,FBN, CNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, etc). He just announced in a big news story that they dropped leaflets warning oil truck drivers to get out of the way, for around 100 of them waiting at the ISIS oil docks.

The Pentagon has been watching they said, over a THOUSAND of these trucks filling up and they have not bombed them.

Obama is waging a PRETEND war against ISIS. Obama is all in for helping al Qaeda and ISIS overthrow Assad in Syria. Obama saw nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton’s helping al Qaeda get rid of Gaddafi.

Gaddafi had become one of the best allies against al Qaeda in the Middle East. He turned over their bad guys and he gave up his nuclear program. That’s why he was confused about the West attacking him so hard.

What about the propaganda against him that claimed he was attacking civilians? My question is, why did the media go along with that propaganda without mentioning that the Libyan “rebels” were doing much worse? Where is the story that exposes the lie that said all the blacks defending Gaddafi were “mercenaries”, when in fact they were the people who were treated well in Gaddafi’s Libya and that knew the Yankee-supported NATO-armed “rebels” were fatally dangerous to them?

Why did nobody ask why the Obama-Clinton regime was supporting rebels that committed much worse atrocities against civilians? If getting rid of monsters is the goal, why aren’t they attacking the worst of them?

And quoting a Washington Post propagandist that said Obama shows “an appreciation not just of the limits of U.S. power, but also of the limited need to exercise it.”

We can all see that he pushes U.S. power where he wants it, and that is, AGAINST the United States and its future. Contrary to the “peaceful guy” government propaganda, he is actively supporting operations that will be the country’s ruin, and he knows it. How can he not, unless his IQ is a lot less that his hiding of college records suggests.

You cannot blame Hillary Clinton for Obama’s continued war against Syria, his pretense bombing of ISIS while supporting Saudi Arabia’s support for ISIS in Syria. You can blame Obama for refusing to cooperate with Russia against ISIS, but not as a “weakness” or “peaceful” man. The truth is rather obvious: they don’t want it known that their support for “moderate Syrians” is a bogus smokescreen disinformation cover. Russia asked the U.S. to tell them where to avoid bombing, then asked them where to bomb.

How strange, two months or so after Obama’s own propaganda campaign for bombing Assad’s forces had hit a blowback wall, ISIS bursts onto the news cycle with captured American tanks and captured Iraqi oil wells, complete with a change in American opinion.